Commonwealth v. Roebuck

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
606 Pa. 290, 997 A.2d 1150 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant can be convicted as an accomplice to third-degree murder if they intentionally aid the principal in the underlying malicious conduct and act with the same level of culpability regarding the resulting death (malice) that is required for the principal's conviction.

Facts:

Appellant Roebuck, along with others, participated in orchestrating a plan to ambush a victim.
The victim was lured to an apartment complex as part of the plan.
At the apartment complex, the victim was ambushed and shot.
The victim sustained mortal wounds from the shooting, but Roebuck was not the person who shot him.

Procedural Posture:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania charged Roebuck with third-degree murder, among other offenses, in a state trial court.
The case was tried on a theory of accomplice liability.
After a bench trial, the trial court found Roebuck guilty of third-degree murder.
Roebuck, as appellant, appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment of sentence.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court, granted discretionary review to decide the legal question of whether one can be an accomplice to third-degree murder.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is it legally possible for a defendant to be convicted as an accomplice to third-degree murder, an offense defined by an unintentional killing committed with malice?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Saylor

Yes, it is legally possible to convict a defendant as an accomplice to third-degree murder. The appellant's argument—that one cannot intend to aid an unintentional act—fails because accomplice liability focuses on intending to facilitate the underlying criminal conduct, not necessarily the criminal result. Under Pennsylvania's accomplice liability statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 306(d)), which mirrors the Model Penal Code, when a particular result is an element of the offense, an accomplice is liable if they act with the same level of culpability regarding that result as is required for the principal. For third-degree murder, the required culpability is malice, a state of extreme recklessness. Therefore, an accomplice who intentionally aids in malicious conduct (e.g., a violent ambush) while possessing the requisite malice can be convicted of third-degree murder if a death results, even if the death itself was not the accomplice's conscious objective. This theory is distinct from attempt or conspiracy, which require a specific intent to achieve the criminal result.

Concurring - Justice Eakin

Yes, a conviction for accomplice to third-degree murder is legally possible. The appellant's logical syllogism fails because its premise that third-degree murder is, by definition, an 'unintentional' killing is flawed. Third-degree murder is a malicious killing where the Commonwealth simply did not prove a specific intent to kill; it does not require proof of an unintentional act. An accomplice to third-degree murder does not intend to aid an unintentional killing; rather, they intend to aid a malicious act which results in a killing. Both the principal and the accomplice who intentionally participate in a malicious act that results in death are guilty of murder.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies that accomplice liability in Pennsylvania extends to crimes of recklessness, not just those requiring specific intent. By adopting the Model Penal Code's approach, the court clarifies that liability hinges on the accomplice's mental state regarding the underlying conduct and the resulting harm. The ruling prevents a defendant from avoiding murder charges by claiming they only intended to help with a lesser crime (like assault) when the shared malicious conduct foreseeably resulted in death. This aligns Pennsylvania with the majority of jurisdictions and reinforces that participants in dangerous, depraved-heart crimes share culpability for the fatal consequences.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Roebuck (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"